FireMedic049

I'm sure you do think it's relevant. It's definitely a legitimate question and I don't have a one size fits all answer for it, however it's a separate issue. On one hand we're talking about people that for the most part have very little driving experience overall and limited experience in the fire service vs people that in all likelihood have numerous years of experience in driving fire apparatus and fire service experience. There's a similarity in that the ability to competently drive the apparatus is paramount, but the fact that an old person is or isn't fit to drive, doesn't have any relevance to whether or not a young person is or isn't fit to drive.

I won't tell you that a 75 year old is still fit to drive and the fact that it does happen doesn't make it a good idea and certainly has very little relevancy to whether or not someone under 21 is fit to drive.

Try contacting your state or county fire training site. Good chance they will have the answers.

I disagree. Selling only the chassis is much more profitable than not selling any vehicle at all. If I'm not mistaken, the ability to buy a Seagrave chassis for certain applications, specifically a 2-door rescue style vehicle, has existed for years. Berwyn Heights, MD (PGFD #14) has a heavy rescue built by Marion on a Seagrave Chassis and their previous one was on a Seagrave chassis also, not sure who built that body, possibly Marion also.

The units do look very similar however they don't have the same mirrors. The VAC unit has Ford OEM type mirrors and the FD unit has an aftermarket mirror assembly.

You're welcome. Unfortunately, far too many people are operating with bad information, speculation or uninformed opinions on this matter.I think a lot of the animosity towards the IAFF is a direct result of this misunderstanding. Some people are so dug in on their view that nothing can change it.

No. It states the affiliation with a "rival organization" is prohibited, however it does not specifically identify any organization as a "rival". The By-Laws state that “working a secondary job part-time, paid on call, volunteer or otherwise as a firefighter, emergency medical services worker, public safety or law enforcement officer, or as a worker in a related service, whether in the public or private sector, where such job is within the work jurisdiction of any affiliate or which adversely impacts the interests of any affiliate or the IAFF." As such, VFDs are not considered rival organizations simply because they exist and IAFF members are not prohibited from affiliation with VFDs in which there isn't an IAFF affiliate - which would be the case if it was an all volunteer organization. However, some VFDs have been declared rival organizations by IAFF Convention Resolution - specifically some VFDs in PG County, Maryland due to DC Metro area IAFF members volunteering at the PG County VFDs in violation of IAFF rules and causing problems for the PGFD IAFF members.

I think you may be misinterpreting his statement. I don't believe that his position is that he is absolutely against the existence of volunteer, part-time or paid-on-call firefighters and their departments. I believe what he was saying was that as a union, we don't specifically represent these 3 classifications and that by our "rules" as voted upon by the delegates, selected by their membership, do not believe our members should be performing in those 3 classifications. By the way "unacceptable" does not equal "rival".

I can see how some may believe their personal freedom is being infringed upon, however it can be argued that it really may not be. The individual still has the right to make his/her own decisions, however like most decisions, there may be consequences to those decisions. If your employer says no secondary employment as a firefighter, you still have the ability to volunteer, however there may be consequences for doing so.

Right.

The direct answer to your question is No, it's not illegal (as in criminal law) to volunteer in another community. However, the career firefighter may be subject to other rules & regulations that may prohibit or restrict that activity. For example, the employer may have rules restricting secondary employment as a firefighter and this often includes volunteering as a firefighter. Additionally, if the FF is an IAFF member, then by the IAFF By-Laws, that member is prohibited from volunteering in a department in which an IAFF Local exists. Enforcement of this is left to the local level and the By-Law does not specifically prohibit volunteering in a fully volunteer department.

Does that really matter? The intent is to make the vehicle more conspicuous and the reflective chevrons certainly do that. From that perspective, does an oncoming driver really need to be able to distinguish between your unit and my unit in order to avoid hitting it? Besides, if the lettering is lost in the chevrons, then the problem is the color of the lettering. I've seen plenty of chevron marked vehicles in which the lettering within the chevron is very distinguishable. You are correct that there should be a strong emphasis on proper placement in order to provide a safer working area in the first place, however I think too often views expressing opposition to the chevrons seem to focus on the minority of drivers who for whatever reason are distracted to the point where they still don't avoid hitting us rather than accepting and welcoming the fact that the markings DO make our vehicles more conspicuous and that WILL absolutely catch the attention of at least some drivers and avoid some accidents that otherwise may have occurred.To me, that's worth the price of admission and trumps the esthetic aspects.

So does this change any opinions of the incident? http://statter911.com/files/2011/06/drowningtimeline.pdf

I think you're grossly misinterpreting many of the comments and drawing poor conclusions from it. I don't believe anybody has given any indication that they think the incident "went well". Clearly it didn't go well since the incident started with a conscious, live victim and ended with a dead victim. However, you're mistakenly thinking that expressing understanding of the actions taken (or not taken) by the Alameda FD & PD given the situation they were in and not rushing to blindly condemn them as thinking thing "went well". Given the circumstances as I understand them via news articles and postings in multiple forums, they appear to have made the appropriate decision regarding a rescue attempt, however that also doesn't mean that the operation "went well". The arrival of the Coast Guard was not immediate and was ineffective and "plan B" took too long, so obviously the operation DIDN'T go well. I don't think you have sufficient information to make the determination that either department's "brass" is incompetent. As for being "prepared" for the incident, I don't believe anybody was arguing that the FD was "prepared". In fact, there seemed to be no hesitation by the FD to make it well known that they were not prepared to handle the incident due to the dismantling of their water rescue program at the direction of the city administration. Well, I think a cliche answer is appropriate in this case....... Two wrongs don't make a right.

Ok, if it'll make you feel better, I'll answer your hypothetical question - I don't know what I'd do for sure. Fortunately, I may never have to make that decision since I am trained in water rescue and my department is equipped to provide water rescue services and doesn't have a policy preventing me from acting in that situation.

Right, because the IC personally handles all crowd control duties and doesn't delegate any of that duty to anybody else on the scene. Additionally, last time I checked, controlling the crowd and securing the scene is typically a PD responsibility. From what I understand, the incident was being handled as a police matter and the PD was acting as the IC, not the FD.

I read the article and it really didn't prove anything. It was nothing but a "he said, she said" article and gave the appearance that there was some miscommunication among the various agencies. Maybe the FD command staff didn't personally make the requests because they were operating under a unified command structure and the PD had already made the requests or at least the PD thought they did?

You are so full of sh!t!!! A nearly 300 lb suicidal man in neck deep water while fully clothed and 150 yards from shore IS NOT "basic water rescue"!! Typically in a water rescue situation, the victim is highly interested in being rescued. There's really no guarantee or indication that this person would not have resisted the rescue attempt. Sure, you can sit here and say that you just needed a boat, pfd & rope, but did they actually have access to all of these items? You continue to make derogatory statements about their command staff and make baseless accusations about this situation. Yes, there was a lack of training, ONE THAT EXISTED BECAUSE THEIR CITY TOOK AWAY THEIR EQUIPMENT AND FUNDING FOR TRAINING IN WATER RESCUE! What "lack of cooperation with other agencies" are you talking about? THEY QUICKLY CALLED FOR THE COAST GUARD TO RESPOND! If the Coast Guard would've been able to respond with a helicopter immediately and it arrived quickly and made the grab would you still be asserting a "lack of cooperation"? I'll ask again even though you keep ignoring the question...............Exactly what should they have done that they didn't do under the circumstances they were under? They lacked the equipment and training necessary for the task at hand. They quickly contacted an agency who did. That agency responded. Don't give me any BS answers about how they should've been trained/equipped for water rescue, because we're all in agreement that they should've been. Exactly what else should they have done?!

Doesn't sum up my feelings about the incident in any fashion. The Fire Department was set up to fail by their City Administration! It happened and like usual, the ones most responsible for this "system failure" are not the ones taking heat for it and the Firefighters are painted as the "unreasonable" ones because they want to be properly funded to provide the services their community expects from them.

So what you are saying is that they should've done what they already did in 2009 - figure out who to call for water rescue incidents since they'd no longer be doing them and then call them when an incident occurs. This is your assessment of the situation, their command staff is incompetent because they did in 2009 what you think they should've done "long before (the) incident happened" and then followed that plan when this incident happened? Brilliant!!

Really? Have you not read any of the media coverage? This is not a matter of the command staff being incompetent. The department HAD a water rescue program until it was defunded 3 years ago and much of their equipment was disposed of and training lapsed. The decision to defund it WAS NOT the decision of FD's command staff, it WAS the people that run the city! The command staff protested the decision and the city was warned of this very situation. The Fire Chief at the time gave an order that water rescue operations were not to be conducted. As a result of this decision, contingency plans were made with other agencies for these types of incidents. At least one of which WAS quickly contacted and responded! Unfortunately, they responded with a water vessel that was too big and it took too long to get the helicopter on scene. As far as an IAP goes, what do you suggest for an incident in which a large suicidal male is neck deep in non-stagnant water 150 yards from shore and the FD is not properly trained/equipped let alone authorized to perform water rescue, the PD (who's in charge of the incident) is preventing them from entering the water and an alternate water rescue agency has been notified? Just what action do you feel still needed planning?

Please explain how NFPA is a shield for cowardice?

According to the articles I read, the training and equipment for water rescue was discontinued a few years ago. Members of the department did have Technician level training, but no longer had current certifications for such. The articles were vague as to whether or not the department had access to the appropriate equipment for this situation, however it was very clear (at least to me) that there was department policy stating that the department (and it's members) were to no longer engages in any water rescue activity. The articles I saw stated that since the FD stopped handling water rescue incidents, the "plan" or "policy" was to notify other agencies for water rescue services. The USCG was one agency specifically mentioned for this and the article clearly stated that the USCG was notified to respond.

Considering the overall financial state of things these days, you're probably vulnerable just by being a public employee. My department is similar in that we also have a minimum staffing of 5 and a max of 7, however we don't have a volunteer component and our minimum will be going to 6 at the start of the new year. My recommendation would be to get prepared for the fight that very well may be coming your way. I would avoid referring to staffing of 7 as "full staffing" because in all reality, it really isn't "full" at only 7 on-duty. Since what the number 7 actually reflects is the maximum number of FFs allowed to be on-duty each day, I'd refer to it as such. I'd also document how working with 5 instead of 7 impacts your operations. Does it reduce the number of units you staff? Does it impact your ability to handle more than one "minor" call at the same time? What fireground tasks get delayed because you are missing 2 FFs? To go along with the above to address the question of "why not 5 all the time?"..........Drive the point home that dropping down to 5 is a sacrifice on your part (the FD) in order to help your municipality out (financially) and not a matter of being able to do the same job with less people. Since you are a combination department and it appears that your volunteer component's ranks may be being misrepresented, I'd recommend putting together some info regarding such. First, if you don't already know, find out who is listed on their roster. Then for each person, document their actual participation - how many calls they make, how much training they attend, what level of participation they are at (full duty, driver only, outside FF, etc.), what level of training they have and anything else you think would be helpful, like still being alive. This should give you the ability to counter any misrepresentation of their participation. Good Luck.

Agreed and that's part of my point - there are differences in urban, suburban, rural & industrial firefighting. The mere existence of differences does not mean there is a superior/inferior relationship among them, however I've seen many a person who seems to think it does and because they aren't career/urban firefighters they think it puts them on the inferior side.